Talk:Wartime collaboration

Collaboration with Allies
This article does not make much sense.

Why concentrate on collaboration with Axis? What about collaboration with Allies? Sigitas 17:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because, the Western Allies (for the most part, and excluding the Soviet Union) were restoring legitimate governments which had been crushed under Nazi occupation. The Dutch did not invite the Germans in, but most of them were more than happy to have British and American troops kick the Germans out... And then the Americans and British left on their own or when asked... The Germans left only when forced. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the argument given above is completely ideological, and has no relevance within the context of an encyclopedia. Collaboration with the Axis or with the Allies (with respect to the Second World War) is fundamentally the same phenomenon.  In order to help balance this article, I have mentioned the Japanese collaborator Minoru Wada in the article, and I would urge others to introduce additional information about people who collaborated with the Allies, in order to make this a more balanced article (rather than the piece of pro-Allied propaganda that it frankly comes off as being at the present time). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The balance that Wikipedia requires is a balance among the RS (=reliable secondary sources). I can't think of any RS that includes collaboration with the Allies.  can KevinOKeeffe identify the RS he is using?? Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary define "collaborate" LINK as "To voluntarily cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country."
 * "Collaboration" is a term that pre-dates the Second World War. I'm unclear how any of this is remotely controversial.  Its self-evident that collaborators existed on both sides of the conflict. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Tellingly, nothing in the opening paragraph, nor in the section on Etymology, defines this article as being solely about collaboration occurring solely on one side or the other. There is an article, Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, which frames the topic in that particular light, but this is not that article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Franz Oppenhoff is an unambiguous example of an Axis citizen collaborator with the Allied authorities whom I've referenced in the article. He was a citizen of the Third Reich who resided in the German city of Aachen, and accepted appointment as mayor of that community, on behalf of the Allied authorities.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If one is looking for instances of collaboration with the WW2 allies perhaps one could look to somewhere like Iceland which was occupied by the Allies. Alternatively one could look to the countries which were occupied or (in the case of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) annexed by the Soviet Union during/after the war. 86.146.222.182 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jonas KLIMAITIS
Who is Jonas KLIMAITIS? I cannot find fis name in any documents.
 * See this reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algirdas_Klimaitis —Thefife 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Quisling into here
Same subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tazmaniacs 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose merger.--Mike18xx 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merger, also strongly. The merger would water down the Quisling content.  Quisling should be allowed to stand out as the quintessential traitor/collaborator.—Thefife 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I am no editor of Wiki and would not know how, otherwise I would completely rewrite this page: It is utterly wrong. It does not define the clear distinction between 'collaboration' (active or passive general assistance to an occupying power) and 'Collaborationism', a different meaning entirely, describing the extremes of active collaboration such as Frenchmen who joined the SS or the Gestapo. The term was created to deal specifically with Occupied France, where collaboration was too broad a term running the gambit from vendors selling food to paying Germans, to active partiucipation in the German war machine. Collaborationism was a term created to separate the extreme active collusion (usually ideological as opposed to practical) from more mundane varieties. http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/collabo.htm Nordenfeldt 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two paragraphs
Are the paragraphs "21 suspected..." and "In Greece..." really necessary here? No sources are given for them and they also seem to be unconnected with the rest of the article. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since noone objected, I'm going to delete those paragraphs. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration and Collaborationism
The article lead has been changed, as has much of the content in the last 48 hours, notably it would appear after this conflict and this discussion in the page on Tokyo Boys. Notably however, the re-editing (most notably to remove the word pejorative) has actually led to the word being defined (with a reference) as the same as "collaboration", but has ignored the secondary definiton on the same page of the same book which point out that it has a criminal implication. Moreover, the term described in the reference is collaboration, not collaborationism'', which is what I believe the secondary definiton is indicating to. See for example Bertram M. Gordon's "Collaborationism in France During the Second World War.", or particularly this google book search and compare with this search on Collaboration.

I am not sure these edits were made in good faith, since it would appear that a deliberate confusion is being made between Collaboration, which is a legal term, and collaborationism, which carries the negative connotation of cooperation with the enemy, especially in and around World War II (ie Nazi Collaborators). rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, my good faith extends only so far as your good sources. You provide well referenced sources, and we'll be just fine. I'm not finished with this article yet. Also removing the {not in citation given} template to first reference because that source explicitly talks about several individuals collaborating on something. Despite what you think, collaborationism was not invented by the French and is not used exclusively in the sense of treasonous behaviour, and subsequently it is not a pejorative term, although a traitor is of course because treason has a far more restricted meaning and use then collaboration. In any case, if you can find a source that says collaborationism "carries the negative connotation of cooperation with the enemy" rather then the negative consequences of being branded a traitor as a result of collaboration, please cite it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The first reference you cite talks about Collaboration, and not Collaborationism, which per the google book searches I have referenced above, seem to imply different things, and the latter is far more accusatory than the other. For the implicit negative connotations, see again the google book search on collaborationism I have listed above. If you wish to look further on this here's a link to Bertram Gordon's article in The Journal of European Studies (Vol. 23, No. 89-90, 1-25 (1993)). You have my apologies for jumping to conclusions on your good faith, however, I think there is a confusion between Collaboration as cooperation between individuals (which is perfectly benign), and the term collaborationism, especially in the sense in which it is applied to WWII, which is what all the references I have listed will indicate to, and also shows that this is the most widespread use of the word Collaboration or collaborationism in the context of the war. I am not claiming at all that the French invented it's use or has copyright on its use. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * rueben_lys, this is a reference work and not a dictionary. The article deals with the concept of collaborating, which is collaborationism, in its every application and not solely in the one application you want to apply it in.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is a reference work and not a dictionary. The references I provided prove that what I am talking about is what is being referred to as the concept. You on the other hand are using dictionary entries (OED) to describe words. The application of the word and concept of "collaborationism" (as the references I provide say, and these are peer reviewed journal articles per WP:RS) is in "traitorous collaboration", as opposed to the dictionary definiton of "collaboration" -of two people beningnly and happily creating wonders by joyful cooperation- that you provide. If you have any references that say "collaborationism" is what you have written (your references defines "collaboration" as a verb in distinction to plagiarism, and that too in scholarly work), then I will be happy to reconsider my position. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC) PS:Collaborating is different from collaborationism, per the second entry in OED mentioned in the same page of your own first reference, and the works in history I have cited. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not finished with the article. I note you keep quoting the same author who's work I have no access to at this stage. if you have it, feel free to quote and reference the page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 10:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting one author as an example. The search results has more than author listed. The reason I am rasing this is because I feel the intro you rewrote has actually made a confusion between what the concept and the verb. I will wait till you feel you have completed your edits before I make any changes. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel
lol at whoever put a blank Israel section, that's hilarious! I mean tragic, but still kinda hilarious in a way. 173.24.166.95 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Collabo is the word
In France, the word is always shorten in "collabo". None says "collaborateur" but everyone says "collabo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:490C:D1E:F9F2:1CCF (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Postwar Italian collaborationism
There is an well-sourced history available describing attempts to prosecute former fascist officials in Italy after WW2, which were mostly unsuccessful for some rather interesting reasons. I was doing some research for [|Denailing], stumbled upon a few things, and was surprised there was nothing on this page about it. Perhaps it is included on another article. If I find the time I might put in a little blurb about it. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition of what constitutes collaboration
The article doesn't make clear what constitutes collaboration. Most citizens who don't actively take up arms against the occupying forces but merely attempt to live their daily lives in a normal fashion (or as close to normal as possible under the circumstances) could be termed collaborators particularly if their occupation involves working in the police or most government jobs. Is a shopkeeper who knowingly serves collaborators also a collaborator ? In some instances the line between collaboration and resistance can be fuzzy. Many wartime resistance movements relied heavily on help from civil servants, police officers and others for things like producing fake documents, helping prisoners escape, supplying information etc. Some resistance fighters took day jobs working for the occupiers to provide cover for their activities or to obtain curfew passes etc some civil servants harbored Jewish families or resistance fighters hiding them from the Nazi's. 86.146.222.182 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collaborationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425191738/http://www.movienewz.nl/rudicarrell/?sub=extern to http://www.movienewz.nl/rudicarrell/?sub=extern&waid=36728
 * Added tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371075506&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Conscripted collaborationism?
Is a unit of conscripted policemen collaborationist? Objectors were punished by comcentration camp terms. According to your classification it was involuntary.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese soldiers interned as POWs
,

could you tell where are Vietnamese POWs interned today (which camps?)?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Bias torwards the Europe Axis in WWII
There have been thousands of invasions in history. Why are only European countries during world war ii included here?

Should be included: Asians who collaborated with the Japanese during WWII, Collaborators with the British in the Indian subcontinent (such as Mir Jafar), the unsigned comment added by 116.204.148.160 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Collaborationism → Wartime collaboration – This article should be renamed Wartime collaboration (which currently ) to match the content of the article and its defining sentence. The content of the article matches this definition, although it is heavily biased towards World War II. Collaborationism has a very restricted meaning and is something entirely different. The current title should be redirected to Vichy France.

There is a clear mismatch between the title of this article, and the content. The dead giveaway is the WP:LEADSENTENCE, which says: "Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime." But that is a definition of wartime collaboration and is absolutely not a definition of collaborationism, which has a far more restricted meaning.

The latter term was created in 1974 by historian Stanley Hoffman to refer to a specific category of collaborators in Vichy France who wished for Germany's victory in World War II. Section Vichy France does a good job of explaining the meaning of this term. In this sense, collaborationism is not equivalent to "French collaborators in Vichy France", it's more restricted even than that, which is partly why Hoffman invented the term in the first place. For example, women who slept with the enemy (and were publicly shamed by getting their heads shaved after Liberation) were collaborators but not necessarily collaborationists.

There is a hierarchy of scope in the use of the word collaboration in war. "Collaboration in wartime" is the broadest, and is a huge topic, spanning millenia and covering the globe through endless wars. Collaboration with the Axis Powers is still a large topic, extending to dozens of countries, but limited to one war in the 1940s. There isn't currently one article on French collaboration in World War II (that redirects to Vichy France), but the topic covers one country in one war, and is partly treated in sections of various articles. The narrow topic of "Collaborationism" is covered accurately in section Vichy France, but there is no article that currently covers this topic (although it is without question WP:Notable, and deserves one).

The current state of the article is confused; the lead sentence says one thing, but the current content appears to cover mostly the topic of wartime collaboration in World War II, with a sprinkling of a couple of Middle Eastern conflicts. Adding to the confusion, the article actually does mention Hoffman in the second paragraph, without however mentioning that he is talking strictly about a subset of collaborators in Vichy France. I support a move to Wartime collaboration as a match to the current content: the lead sentence, and the original choice of a one-word title (even if wrong), and the inclusion of the Middle East conflicts suggests that the intended scope of the article is all collaboration with the enemy in any war. "Collaborationism" would ideally have its own article some day, but should be redirected to Vichy France ("with possibilities") while waiting for that to happen.

Finally, as far as a choice of wording for the new title, I initially preferred the term collaboration in wartime as a descriptive title, but I found that wartime collaboration is much more frequently used, so that settled it for me. A possible alternative would be Collaboration (war), but "Wartime collaboration" seems more direct and intuitive. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * '''Listed: at WT:WikiProject Military history, WT:WikiProject France.
 * Notifying: (of top editors, only two are still active; creator is long gone.) Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Change the title. Smallchief (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I Agreee Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move follow-up
Following the move to Wartime collaboration, I've adjusted terminology in the lead and the rest of the article to suit. With the topic thus clarified, I was able to carry out a re-org of the section structure, and beef up the lead and portions of the body to tighten up the article around the clarified topic of "Wartime collaboration". I've added new matrial from Hirschfeld, which sources some of the pre-existing, unsourced content, Certainly the article could and should be further improved, but I think we have a reasonable and clear framework now, upon which we can build. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Following the move, the article was moved again to Collaborationism without discussion, and the lead was subsequently altered to change the definition to that of collaborationism. However, that is a different topic, related to this one but narrower, which deserves its own page. I returned the page to its consensus title, and beefed up the #Definition section to better describe the differences, borrowing from Vichy France, and I redid the lead to better summarize it and to provide a better description of both the general term, and also a mention of the distinction between it and the related term. The terms are confusingly similar in spelling and meaning, and I think the article could benefit from a hatnote. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Poland section, General Goverment
Regarding this --> However, the Germans did find some individuals who would work with them, and this is demonstrated notably by the General Government set up by the Germans in 1939 after the invasion of Poland...

Wrong, the GG was run by Germany as a separate administrative unit without any Polish participation. I removed that error. GizzyCatBella 🍁  14:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC) iindeffed sock

Celebrities
Not sure if we want to keep this section, but if we do, a prime example would be Coco Chanel. Mathglot (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not seeing a celebrities section? Not necessarily against having one, though I would prefer a different title Elinruby (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed tree
Relationship between this and related articles:

wartime collaboration

-etc
 * collaboration with the Ottoman Porte =>Main
 * --Main => sections
 * ---sections=>Main (if applicable)
 * collaboration with Imperial Japan =>main
 * --Main => sections
 * ---sections=>Main
 * subsections=>Main (if applicable)
 * Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy =>main
 * --Main => sections
 * ---sections =>Main
 * subsections => Main (if applicable)
 * Collaboration with the Soviet Union (?) => main
 * ---sections => Main (if applicable)
 * subsections => Main (if applicable)

Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Elinruby (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In case you are interested Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Elinruby (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Etymology
English usage follows the French, but isn't identical to it. All definitions and etymologies from CNRTL: Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * fr:collaboration (1753) – Participation à l'élaboration d'une œuvre commune
 * fr:collaborateur (1755) – Personne qui participe à l'élaboration d'une œuvre commune; personne qui travaille avec une autre
 * fr:collaborer (1830) – collaborer avec qqn. Travailler en collaboration
 * fr:collaborationniste – Adj. [En France sous l'occupation allemande] Partisan de la collaboration avec l'ennemi
 * ,, , I got recommendations for three books from  in a talk page comment that seemed to get lost at Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. I managed to get hold of them, two of them are ebooks and one is on archive.org. Together they define an excellent series of definitions for collaboration,  that is fairly up to date. I can forward the ebooks if anybody wants to read them. The archive.org entry is at . I think together and what can picked up from the Gbooks will be enough to define collaboration correctly with a fairly modern, latest 2004 definitions of the different types of colloboration and how they relate to each other.    scope_creep Talk  14:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * please do forward. Email is enabled on my account. Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Re Henri Lafont (new translation)
This seems relevant but I am not sure to which articles:

Mehlman, Jeffrey. “The Joinovici Affair: The Stavisky of the Fourth Republic.” French Politics, Culture & Society, vol. 32, no. 1, 2014, pp. 101–10. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24517626. Accessed 26 July 2023.Elinruby (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you mention this citation in connection with Henri Lafont, who is only mentioned in passing on page 103. Mathglot (talk)


 * aha.


 * 93 rue Lauriston was Lafont and Lafont was 93 rue Lauriston. Joinovici was definitely part of rue Lauriston and as I recall was where Lafont got his passes that gave him so much influence. I know it's another shiny object but there is a whole black market aspect that has not been touched. Not to mention Nazi rent-seeking. Thank you for pointing out that not everyone has been neck-deep in the Paris underworld of WW2 this week. But until such time as I can make the connection clearer to Lafont and to collaboration, it's a somewhat dense but very interesting case study, I assure you.


 * Here we have a claim by a Boston University professor, presumably RS, that an illiterate Bessarabian Jew made a fortune in scrap metal in Nazi Paris, was considered a "useful Jew" and by sheer force of personality was able to not only launch both an Algerian right-wing militia (another tie to Lafont) AND a Resistance group based at the Prefecture de Paris, but also to arguably fund the weapons used in the Liberation of Paris.


 * Later he was deported from Israel, which apparently never happened, and France had to accept him because...well. Remember that for certain crimes they strip you of the privileges of citizenship? This implied that he had French citizenship at the time, whereas neither Romania nor the Soviet Union would recognize him as ever having been one of theirs.


 * Apparently he accomplished much by being very good at losing at cards.


 * TL;DR=I can connect it up. Consider it a question slash suggestion for the back burner, but I strongly recommend it as reading material. Elinruby (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To whom it may concern: I am going to finish the Lafont article, and the Perre Bonny, which it turns out is a stub I created but never expanded back when we were working on Liberation of France. This plus the books on collaboration as a concept should keep me busy for a bit. Ping me if anything needs to be discussed. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the above note to myself is addressed. Not striking because someone commented Elinruby (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Soviet Union
This article (to be written) was mentioned a bit above. The problem is the fuzziness of concepts; here - wartime. For example, significant and controversial cooperation with the Soviet Union occurred in the years 1939-1941 in Polish territories annexed by the Soviet Union, following the Soviet invasion of Poland. But technically, outside that short-lived military conflict, there never was an official state of war between Poland and USSR. So, was this "wartime" collaboration? (This ls likely related to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states in the same period, which AFAIK occurred with even less "war"). PS. The article mentions Lublin government from 1944, but at that time, technically, Poland and USSR were "allies", despite Poland having two government, the in-exile one was on non-speaking terms with USSR, but still, no war was declared - this example likewise is not very "wartime", unless we consider the WWII context in the background. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a problem. I think it would have to have a defined scope in time, first of all, or we need to be ready to write a whole lot about Crimea and Luhansk, for example, not to mention the Cold War and who knows what else. I assume that's a given and the working title above is just a convenience handle. That's all I have just now. Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * so if I am understanding you correctly then if collaboration with the Soviet Union were to be a child article of Wartime collaboration it would need to be specifically about 1939-1941? Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would need to to a lit review to answer this. And my motivation wanes as there is the specter of the ultra-controversial topic of żydokomuna related to this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear that. Let it simmer a while. There's a needed article in there somewhere. Finland if noplace else. Come help me out with business collaboration. Surely there was a black market outside of France? Elinruby (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category: Collaboration
Category: Collaboration contains a whole lot of articles about what we're talking about here and as well as a bunch of subcategories like collaboration software and collaborative film-making. As far as I can tell there is no parent category for Wartime Collaboration, or whatever name we should use to distinguish it from Zoom. There is a Collaborators category; a random sampling turns up a lot of spies, Tokyo Roses and war criminals, whereas the Nazis/Fascist article is very focused on anyone who wore a German uniform. I am not taking sides in this dichotomy, just pointing it out. I think some planning and organization could avert a lot of frustration and working at cross purposes. Elinruby (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand correctly, you're trying to determine if there's a parent topic of wartime collaboration that extends past wartime but still having to do with country allegiance or betrayal, while excluding broader business sense of collaboration in its positive sense of members of different teams working productively together in some fashion for a common goal, is that right? What do you envision it including, spies? What about countries that are not necessarily enemies, maybe even friends at the governmental level but with pressure from a stronger nation over a weaker one, where a significant fraction of the latter opposes the meddling and thinks of their own leaders as collaborators in peacetime (I'm thinking of Warsaw Pact countries here)? Would the the "national" or country-based angle have to be in there, or would it transcend that?
 * Although oversimplified, the "opposite" of wartime is peacetime, so do we have a concept of "peacetime collaboration", or is that just spying, or being a useful idiot? Seems like a lot of things *could* go in a parent article, but is there actual support in the sources for something like that? Or have I missed your point entirely? Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * well the "wartime" problem is something that just brought up and I myself have questions about. If I understand him, he is asking about essentially unopposed invasions. To use an example we two are both familiar with, think of Paris being declared an open city. It was occupied in wartime, yes, but without actual fighting. That's what I think he is asking. Hopefully he will amend that if I have it wrong.
 * My question is different. If you type "Category: Collaboration" into the search bar in Wikipedia, you get a lot of stuff about business teams collaborating, collaboration software, and ... This article for example, which is how I noticed this. This is too big a problem for us to remedy on our own, and should go to CfD, but it would nice to go there with an intelligent proposal rather than blindly.
 * As a separate but related problem we have 'Category: Collaborators", which is highly populated, and which I have not exhaustively examined. However, I have looked at some of them, and saw spies, broadcasters and abusive prison guards. Also see the lists at Collaboration with Imperial Japan the, and my edit summaries when I referenced them. I am not saying any of these is not collaboration, but getting back to the scope question, Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy seems have had an entirely different concept of collaboration, almost completely unsourced by the way. I have largely either sourced it or deleted what I could not find sources for, since the Grabowski piece, but much as I did not want him to be correct, he was right at the time of publication. That is a different issue however. My point is that there is an article that sees collaboration as wearing a German uniform (plus some politicians added by me) and various bios in category:collaborators, some of which presumably should be its child articles, since they are set in World War II, but which it does not include.
 * There are some other aspects to this (appeasement, alliance, coercion) but this is complicated enough for one post and discussing these three points would be a big step forward.
 * Does that clarify? Elinruby (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration in Ukraine
A good article on pro-Russian residents of Kherson and nearby areas of eastern Ukraine collaborating with the Russians is in the New York Times magazine article [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/magazine/ukraine-kherson-collaboration-russia.html Some Ukrainians Helped the Russians. Their Neighbors Sought Revenge.] Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)